正如我們所看到的那樣,憤世嫉俗的人往往會(huì)先發(fā)制人發(fā)起攻擊,激發(fā)對(duì)方最糟糕的一面。而懷有希望的人則愿意冒險(xiǎn),勇敢地信任他人,讓對(duì)方展現(xiàn)出最好的一面。
這種冒險(xiǎn)有時(shí)候需要有大動(dòng)作。有時(shí)候則只需要一些小小的舉動(dòng),例如花時(shí)間與不同意見者相處,這些小小的舉動(dòng)依然能產(chǎn)生強(qiáng)大的效果。這聽起來(lái)很簡(jiǎn)單,但實(shí)際上已經(jīng)開始變得幾乎難以實(shí)現(xiàn)。2016年,有51%的美國(guó)人表示與競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手交流是“有趣的和具有啟發(fā)性的”,有46%的美國(guó)人表示會(huì)感覺(jué)“緊張且令人沮喪”。但五年后,這種熱情已經(jīng)消失:59%的美國(guó)人表示,與競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手對(duì)話令人沮喪,只有不到40%的人認(rèn)為這個(gè)過(guò)程是有趣的。在被要求將與競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手對(duì)話和其他活動(dòng)進(jìn)行比較時(shí),民主黨人和共和黨人都表示,他們寧愿選擇痛苦的牙科治療。
在一個(gè)分裂的世界,將人們團(tuán)結(jié)起來(lái)遠(yuǎn)比拔牙困難得多。與競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手對(duì)話聽起來(lái)很危險(xiǎn),甚至不道德,就像羅馬人在攻城時(shí)邀請(qǐng)西哥特人喝啤酒一樣。即使人們能夠克服對(duì)立情緒,他們也看不到跨黨派對(duì)話的意義。2022年,我的實(shí)驗(yàn)室向數(shù)百人調(diào)查,如果共和黨人與民主黨人談?wù)撜危赡軙?huì)發(fā)生什么。大多數(shù)人認(rèn)為,在對(duì)話之后,人們只會(huì)擴(kuò)大分歧。一位來(lái)自賓夕法尼亞州的民主黨人寫道:“政治對(duì)話注定徒勞無(wú)功。”來(lái)自得克薩斯州的一位共和黨人說(shuō)道:“文明已死。相互尊重、求同存異也不復(fù)存在。”
他們和大多數(shù)對(duì)跨黨派對(duì)話持悲觀態(tài)度的人都是錯(cuò)誤的。2022年夏季,我的實(shí)驗(yàn)室邀請(qǐng)了一百多位美國(guó)人,請(qǐng)他們放下恐懼,與對(duì)手召開20分鐘Zoom視頻會(huì)議。人們加入Zoom會(huì)議,整理好身后的房間,取消靜音,然后開始談?wù)摌屩Ч苤啤夂蜃兓蛪櫶サ仍掝}。我們的團(tuán)隊(duì)確保每個(gè)人與合作伙伴的意見完全相左。我們還制定了應(yīng)急計(jì)劃,以應(yīng)對(duì)人們相互侮辱或威脅的情況。
令所有人大感意外的是,對(duì)話過(guò)程非常精彩。人們會(huì)有沖突,但也會(huì)傾聽對(duì)方的講話。我們要求人們按0(非常負(fù)面)至100分(非常正面)對(duì)這段經(jīng)歷進(jìn)行評(píng)分,人們給出的最多的評(píng)分是100分。在與對(duì)手交流后,參與者對(duì)對(duì)手的反感程度下降了20個(gè)百分點(diǎn),并且三個(gè)月后依舊維持在較低水平。如果在全美進(jìn)行這樣的對(duì)話,那么美國(guó)黨派之間相互攻訐的程度,可能會(huì)從2020年倒退回克林頓時(shí)期的水平:當(dāng)時(shí)美國(guó)政壇雖然并非完全風(fēng)平浪靜,但也不像現(xiàn)在這樣充滿仇恨。參加過(guò)這類對(duì)話的人,變得不太可能將對(duì)方非人化,并且對(duì)自己的觀點(diǎn)也變得更加謙遜。
如果社交中的“鯊魚攻擊”讓我們害怕日常互動(dòng),那么它們更會(huì)讓我們對(duì)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手心生恐懼。如果與陌生人的對(duì)話能帶來(lái)出人意料的積極效果,那么跨越分歧的對(duì)話則可能有著令人驚嘆的實(shí)用效果。
當(dāng)然,并非所有對(duì)話都能減少?zèng)_突。有成千上萬(wàn)次感恩節(jié)晚餐在南瓜派上桌前就已經(jīng)分崩離析,因?yàn)槿藗冊(cè)诿鎸?duì)面的時(shí)候,與在網(wǎng)上一樣刻薄。與競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手對(duì)話遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠;這類對(duì)話要想取得成效,需要在心理和情緒上付出努力。許多研究發(fā)現(xiàn)了以更好的方式處理分歧的秘訣:
1.善于表達(dá)不同意見的人會(huì)提出問(wèn)題,而不是直接陳述自己的意見。
2.他們會(huì)努力了解對(duì)方的觀點(diǎn)背后的故事。
3.當(dāng)他們發(fā)現(xiàn)共同點(diǎn)時(shí),會(huì)明確地指出來(lái)。
4.如果他們對(duì)某些事情不確定,他們會(huì)坦誠(chéng)相告,而不是假裝自己很有信心。
這些策略能夠降低分歧演變成沖突的可能性。良性的分歧不僅令人愉快,還具有強(qiáng)大的力量。在實(shí)驗(yàn)中,被告知上述訣竅的人,會(huì)更有意識(shí)地傾聽對(duì)方的講話,并更有的放矢地提出問(wèn)題。而他們的談話對(duì)象即使沒(méi)有接受過(guò)培訓(xùn),也會(huì)變得更加開明。憤怒具有傳染性,而好奇心和謙遜同樣如此。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:劉進(jìn)龍
審校:汪皓
正如我們所看到的那樣,憤世嫉俗的人往往會(huì)先發(fā)制人發(fā)起攻擊,激發(fā)對(duì)方最糟糕的一面。而懷有希望的人則愿意冒險(xiǎn),勇敢地信任他人,讓對(duì)方展現(xiàn)出最好的一面。
這種冒險(xiǎn)有時(shí)候需要有大動(dòng)作。有時(shí)候則只需要一些小小的舉動(dòng),例如花時(shí)間與不同意見者相處,這些小小的舉動(dòng)依然能產(chǎn)生強(qiáng)大的效果。這聽起來(lái)很簡(jiǎn)單,但實(shí)際上已經(jīng)開始變得幾乎難以實(shí)現(xiàn)。2016年,有51%的美國(guó)人表示與競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手交流是“有趣的和具有啟發(fā)性的”,有46%的美國(guó)人表示會(huì)感覺(jué)“緊張且令人沮喪”。但五年后,這種熱情已經(jīng)消失:59%的美國(guó)人表示,與競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手對(duì)話令人沮喪,只有不到40%的人認(rèn)為這個(gè)過(guò)程是有趣的。在被要求將與競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手對(duì)話和其他活動(dòng)進(jìn)行比較時(shí),民主黨人和共和黨人都表示,他們寧愿選擇痛苦的牙科治療。
在一個(gè)分裂的世界,將人們團(tuán)結(jié)起來(lái)遠(yuǎn)比拔牙困難得多。與競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手對(duì)話聽起來(lái)很危險(xiǎn),甚至不道德,就像羅馬人在攻城時(shí)邀請(qǐng)西哥特人喝啤酒一樣。即使人們能夠克服對(duì)立情緒,他們也看不到跨黨派對(duì)話的意義。2022年,我的實(shí)驗(yàn)室向數(shù)百人調(diào)查,如果共和黨人與民主黨人談?wù)撜危赡軙?huì)發(fā)生什么。大多數(shù)人認(rèn)為,在對(duì)話之后,人們只會(huì)擴(kuò)大分歧。一位來(lái)自賓夕法尼亞州的民主黨人寫道:“政治對(duì)話注定徒勞無(wú)功。”來(lái)自得克薩斯州的一位共和黨人說(shuō)道:“文明已死。相互尊重、求同存異也不復(fù)存在。”
他們和大多數(shù)對(duì)跨黨派對(duì)話持悲觀態(tài)度的人都是錯(cuò)誤的。2022年夏季,我的實(shí)驗(yàn)室邀請(qǐng)了一百多位美國(guó)人,請(qǐng)他們放下恐懼,與對(duì)手召開20分鐘Zoom視頻會(huì)議。人們加入Zoom會(huì)議,整理好身后的房間,取消靜音,然后開始談?wù)摌屩Ч苤啤夂蜃兓蛪櫶サ仍掝}。我們的團(tuán)隊(duì)確保每個(gè)人與合作伙伴的意見完全相左。我們還制定了應(yīng)急計(jì)劃,以應(yīng)對(duì)人們相互侮辱或威脅的情況。
《犬儒主義者的希望:關(guān)于人類善良的驚人科學(xué)》(Hope For Cynics: The Surprising Science Of Human Goodness),作者:賈米爾·扎基
令所有人大感意外的是,對(duì)話過(guò)程非常精彩。人們會(huì)有沖突,但也會(huì)傾聽對(duì)方的講話。我們要求人們按0(非常負(fù)面)至100分(非常正面)對(duì)這段經(jīng)歷進(jìn)行評(píng)分,人們給出的最多的評(píng)分是100分。在與對(duì)手交流后,參與者對(duì)對(duì)手的反感程度下降了20個(gè)百分點(diǎn),并且三個(gè)月后依舊維持在較低水平。如果在全美進(jìn)行這樣的對(duì)話,那么美國(guó)黨派之間相互攻訐的程度,可能會(huì)從2020年倒退回克林頓時(shí)期的水平:當(dāng)時(shí)美國(guó)政壇雖然并非完全風(fēng)平浪靜,但也不像現(xiàn)在這樣充滿仇恨。參加過(guò)這類對(duì)話的人,變得不太可能將對(duì)方非人化,并且對(duì)自己的觀點(diǎn)也變得更加謙遜。
如果社交中的“鯊魚攻擊”讓我們害怕日常互動(dòng),那么它們更會(huì)讓我們對(duì)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手心生恐懼。如果與陌生人的對(duì)話能帶來(lái)出人意料的積極效果,那么跨越分歧的對(duì)話則可能有著令人驚嘆的實(shí)用效果。
當(dāng)然,并非所有對(duì)話都能減少?zèng)_突。有成千上萬(wàn)次感恩節(jié)晚餐在南瓜派上桌前就已經(jīng)分崩離析,因?yàn)槿藗冊(cè)诿鎸?duì)面的時(shí)候,與在網(wǎng)上一樣刻薄。與競(jìng)爭(zhēng)對(duì)手對(duì)話遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不夠;這類對(duì)話要想取得成效,需要在心理和情緒上付出努力。許多研究發(fā)現(xiàn)了以更好的方式處理分歧的秘訣:
1.善于表達(dá)不同意見的人會(huì)提出問(wèn)題,而不是直接陳述自己的意見。
2.他們會(huì)努力了解對(duì)方的觀點(diǎn)背后的故事。
3.當(dāng)他們發(fā)現(xiàn)共同點(diǎn)時(shí),會(huì)明確地指出來(lái)。
4.如果他們對(duì)某些事情不確定,他們會(huì)坦誠(chéng)相告,而不是假裝自己很有信心。
這些策略能夠降低分歧演變成沖突的可能性。良性的分歧不僅令人愉快,還具有強(qiáng)大的力量。在實(shí)驗(yàn)中,被告知上述訣竅的人,會(huì)更有意識(shí)地傾聽對(duì)方的講話,并更有的放矢地提出問(wèn)題。而他們的談話對(duì)象即使沒(méi)有接受過(guò)培訓(xùn),也會(huì)變得更加開明。憤怒具有傳染性,而好奇心和謙遜同樣如此。(財(cái)富中文網(wǎng))
譯者:劉進(jìn)龍
審校:汪皓
As we’ve seen, cynical people take preemptive strikes and bring out the worst in others. Hopeful individuals take leaps of faith and bring out others’ best.
Some of these are grand gestures. Other leaps are small but still powerful, like spending time with people we disagree with. This sounds simple, but it’s started to feel impossible. As recently as 2016, 51% of Americans said it would be “interesting and informative” to talk with a rival, edging out the 46% who said it would be “stressful and frustrating.” Five years later, this enthusiasm had evaporated: Fifty-nine percent said these conversations would be frustrating, and less than 40% said they’d be interesting. Asked to compare talking with rivals to other activities, both Democrats and Republicans said they’d prefer a painful dental procedure.
In a divided world, bringing people together is not like pulling teeth; it’s harder. Chatting with rivals feels dangerous and even immoral—like the Romans inviting Visigoths for a beer during the siege. Even if they could get over their distaste, people don’t see the point of cross-party conversations. In 2022, my lab asked hundreds of people what would happen if Republicans and Democrats talked politics. Most believed that people would agree with one another even less after the conversation. One Democrat from Pennsylvania wrote, “Political dialogue is doomed.” A Texas Republican said, “Civility is dead. Respectfully disagreeing is dead.”
They were both wrong, as is most people’s pessimism about cross-party conversations. In the summer of 2022, my lab invited over a hundred Americans to set aside their trepidation and join twenty-minute Zoom calls with a rival. After logging on, tidying the rooms behind them, and remembering to unmute, the pairs talked about issues like gun control, climate change, and abortion. Our team had ensured that each person truly disagreed with their partner. We also set up contingency plans for what to do if people insulted or threatened each other.
“Hope For Cynics: The Surprising Science Of Human Goodness” by Jamil Zaki
Courtesy of Grand Central Publishing
To everyone’s surprise, these conversations were wonderful. People clashed, but also listened. When we asked them to rate the experience on a scale from 1 (very negative) to 100 (very positive), the most common response was exactly 100. After talking with a rival, participants’ dislike of rivals plummeted by more than twenty points on a hundred-point scale and remained lower three months later. If the rest of the country joined them, the clock on our nation’s partisan aggression would roll backward from 2020 to the Clinton era: not an entirely peaceful time, but not nearly as vicious as our politics are today. People also left these chats less likely to dehumanize the other side, and humbler about their own opinions.
If social shark attacks scare us away from everyday interactions, they terrify us of rivals. And if conversations with strangers are surprisingly positive, meeting across difference is astonishingly useful.
Of course, not every conversation softens conflict. Thousands of Thanksgiving dinners have disintegrated before the pumpkin pie arrives, because people can be just as mean in person as they are online. It’s not enough to talk at rivals; to be productive, encounters require mental and emotional work. Studies reveal a recipe for disagreeing better:
1. Good disagreers ask questions instead of making statements.
2. They work to get underneath people’s opinions to their stories.
3. When they spot common ground, good disagreers name it.
4. When they are unsure about something, they say so rather than pretending to be confident.
These ingredients each decrease the chance dissent will devolve into toxic conflict. But good disagreement is more than nice; it’s powerful. In experiments, people given the recipe you see here listened more intently and asked better questions. But the people they talked with also became more open-minded, even though they received no training. Outrage is contagious, but so are curiosity and humility.